Considering the narrative when he entered the race starting at Zero, he's done amazingly well.

But he was and is the underdog against Hillary's TradeMarked Brand and her Big Money backers and the tendency of the Establish to go for the "safe sure thing mayonnaise."

Time will tell whether Sanders can keep it up and beat the odds. Both (all) candidates will have their ups and downs and ups and downs...

But attempts to demoralize will not work.

What attempts to demoralize?

Probably due to several factors, the Benghazi stuff being thoroughly and permanently debunked by the GOP's own leading candidate for speaker no less, and an upsurge in the activity in her campaign.

Nothing drums up support for the Clintonian meme of "they're all out to get me" like when some GOP asshat accidentally admits that, yes, they are all out to get her.

She also seems to have relaxed a bit, which helps her image.

Hillary is at 43.8%, Bernie is at 23.7%, and Biden at 17.1%.

Fast forward to today, and Clinton 40.3%, Sanders 25.6%, Biden 16.1% with Independents included.

One good day of polling or bad day changes the entire landscape for 5 days, and then there is a sudden spike or drop when that day runs off.

Seeing this or the SurveyMonkey poll quoted on this site by either side just gives me the sads.

He hasn't announced he's running yet, what possibly is the point in adding his name to the list of candidates?

Don't get me wrong, I like Biden, and if he decides to run, more power to him AND us. But until he does, what is the point of having his name in there??

Totally useless

And I am speaking as a Clinton supporter.

The variability is nuts. Using the same filters as from the OP, and going through October 6, the results are now Clinton 45%, Sanders 25% for a ridiculously unreal swing in 4 days.

Always open polling that follows an open invite for participants is just not reliable. It just isn't, and I don't care who is up and who is down. We now have another four days to go before Clinton's stupidly low polling day stops influencing results.

Reuters needs to disappear as a poll worth talking about.

Didn't have an option for me to vote eight times.

other party and independents, both of which can and do vote in primaries, the numbers are quite different.

Clinton is trending down at 35.2% for today, and Sanders is trending up at 23.8%, only an 11 point difference.

But, yes, there is nothing to worry about since the first debate is about a week away and voting doesn't start for many months.

The race has stabilized right now (nationally), probably until the debate:

The numbers are about:

40-45 Clinton
25-30 Sanders
15-20 Biden


+ or - a few percentage points here and there. Won't be any at the national level until the 13th- I'd say PPP's newest national poll is probably right on the mark.

truth telling.

As will EGazhi.

There is a reason folks call Hillary "formidable" and why the GOP fear her.

And anything the GOP fears about any liberal is a good kind of fear.

Most Bernie supporters are fully in favor of keeping religion out of politics.

just to make the rest of us vote for the Lesser of Two Evils in the General.

I also think her numbers will continue to improve as the positives for her from the last week or so filter into the collective consciousness.

Looks like a mess of a poll...especially when it first comes from HillaryHQ...

Since the supporters love to howl about polls, looks like this one smells.

He is in it to win it. And he is in it to start a movement. I believe the second reason is vital for the 2018 elections. Hopefully we have a Democratic president and Senate. But it will require a big push in 2018 to rid the party of Blue Dogs if real change is to happen.

We need more candidates to come forward who are economic reformers. That could be the beginning of the end of corporate governance.

as our hated Blue dogs were replaced by even more hated tea party people.

That idea never ends well.

I think the movement being created needs staying power. Liberals tend to walk away from the fight or start another fight. Conservatives seem to love a fight. And we need a couple of big fiscal issues to unite on and carry on the fight past 2016.

Even if the blue dogs don't vote with us on every issue, they kept the Democratic party in charge of the agenda, and in charge of the Senate and House leadership.

I can't believe how little understanding there is about this.

We needed every blue dog we had.

than conservative Dems. If by Blue Dogs you mean this:

"one of the stories says they were blue in the face from being choked by liberals. Another says they were left out in the cold by liberals so they turned blue. Whatever the actual genesis of the term, it’s fair to say they desperately needed a hug.

Kilgore astutely observes that they were in agreement about one thing on a strategic basis:

Everything about the Blue Dogs (at least in the South) was designed to convince ancestral conservative white Democrats to persist in their ancient voting habits on the non-presidential level on grounds of solidarity with said Democrats’ grievances with the national party. “Triangulation” was central to the Blue Dog message in a way that was never entirely true for Bill Clinton or the DLC or other Democratic heretics.... "

It's mind boggling. Are blue dogs war hawks? Gun nuts? Religious activists?" Money is Speech" bots? Anti-ACA? All of the above? It's hard to say.

End gerrymandering and maybe we'll find, out.

Hillary was good on SNL.

Just not my choice, among all available choice, for President.

If only she would make sure the DNC doesn't give the appearance of a rigged primary or actually conduct a rigged primary, then she'd be in pretty good shape. The extent, however, to which the game appears to be in the process of being rigged, however, is potentially her worst downfall.

More debates. Sooner. The only way to make the honest, best choice. For I am not going to be swayed by name recognition or appearances on SNL.

Does the DNC control who voters support?
Why does Hillary have an advantage in fewer debates?
I just read the New Yorker article about Bernie. He is almost a one trick pony with the economic justice thing. How many debates can he bring that up in? How is he going to answer questions on foreign policy? How about minority issues? How about women's reproductive health?
I know free college, single payer and $15 minimum wage.
If the game is rigged the DNC didn't rig it.

his repetitive message in?

It's their many supporters, who want their candidate of choice to get the public notices they deserve.

Hillary should not be nominated because of name recognition, nor should the system appear to be rigged in her favor.

It's not just supporters of Bernie or O'Malley who see the game as suspiciously rigged right now.

Why can't supporters of Hillary see that the Party is weakened with such divisiveness? What's the matter with more debates? Why the adamant refusal, in the face of much public outcry and suspicion? Why the threat to punish anyone who goes outside the DNC system with outside debates?

Give them the debates and win anyway, if you can. If you can't, you certainly didn't deserve it in the first place.

It's a huge waste of time and money to put on a dozen or more.

When you have this many people in the Democratic Party hopping mad about having more debates, what do you do?

Stonewall and act like a little baby and insist that you've made your decision?
Or graciously and wisely schedule more debates?

You can justify all you want that you don't think there should be more debates. but there are plenty of folks, including me, who not only think there should be but there must be, in order to have a true and fair process.

Ignore those folks and diss them if you like, but they will not take it lightly, and the consequences may not be minor.

To the person who is confident they have the best candidate, what does it matter that we have more debates, and during times when people will actually watch?

If nothing else, a different agreement should be struck on more debates to include and welcome all the passionate people who want to see them. Why not? What do you have to lose? Money? Money well-spent to keep the Democratic Party spirited and unified, and to make sure all efforts are made to make it a fair process.

who are "hopping mad" about the number of debates is large.

DU isn't representative of the party overall.

Do you have any links to support your impression?

Since you seem to think that limited debates is a good thing, even despite the good Democrats who are massively upset about it and the objective observers who think it is very strange and counter-productive, could you please outline the reasons you think that limited debates is such a good thing?

We will see how the percentage fall out, any way that this is run. You may be right that his appeal never reaches the levels it needs to in order to earn the nomination.

But why should the DNC, and other good Democrats like yourself, relish the idea of disenfranchising the Sanders and O'Malley voters and anybody else who thinks we need more exposure and more debates? Because Debbie Wasserman Schultz is such a strategic genius and thinks this is the right thing? Because they don't feel like it?

I have no illusions it's even likely to change. Just saying that as long as it doesn't change, the Democratic Party has some explaining and fence-mending to do. And this split in the Party is very, very real.

For all the vitriol thrown at Bernie Sanders and particularly his supporters, I do not see them trying to rig the election in any particular way. They just vehemently think that their candidate should win, and want him to have a fair chance to present his views to the Democratic Party regulars in a media-friendly way.

Again, perhaps some folks think he should have to buy the exposure himself. That does not seem like a particularly Progressive or small d democratic way to think at all.

But back to the main paint, what are the fundamentally sound reasons why limiting debate is a good thing for the Democratic Party, for our chance next year in the general elections?

she is the best candidate

It's interesting and intriguing how much those who support Hillary wish this was just sewed up already, a done deal, a coronation. That's what the DNC is apparently trying to make it by scheduling so few debates, at such odd times, and by threatening to punish anyone who debates outside their jurisdiction.

I am sure they would do more if they could, and that they will. Holding the keys to all the seats at the debates, no doubt deciding on formats and questions, there is a lot that can be done to put your finger on the scale of actually who can attract the most votes.

I keep hearing how Hillary has the majority and always has and that Bernie has peaked and so forth. This is supposed to be a process, whereby we put forward the best candidate. I respect Hillary, but do not find her to be the best candidate. There are many like me, and not all for Bernie Sanders.

What is it in a truly democratic process that does not appeal to those who support Hillary? I supposed it's because they are so adamant that it be ordained this time that she be the nominee.

I understand that feeling, just don't think it's wise or fair or good for the Party to just let it go at that.

If she's the best, let her show it in free and open debates, where candidates actually get to demonstrate why and how they are the best to lead, and let those who may not know the other candidates so well have a chance to make a real decision.

Have a little faith in your candidate, and let her compete. I would suggest that Hillary supporters convince her to compete, because if the game seems rigged, there will be little enthusiasm afterwards and much disarray.

Come to an agreement, of some kind, that gets everyone onboard the same train, and let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise, you're just delaying that eventuality to the general election, and that does not seem like a good idea..

Hillary is supported by over 50% of Dems if you don't count Biden who isn't running. Bernie is supported by about 25% of Dems. It has been that way for months and it will stay that way. It isn't the DNC doing that it is everyday Dems backing one candidate or the other.
I doubt it will ever sink in though.
I listened to Bernie on MSNBC yesterday. He said he has the money now to stay in for IA, NH and NC. He said he hasn't made many inroads to AA's and Hispanics but he was going to work on that. Now that is not the fault of the DNC that is because AA's and Hispanics favor Hillary and that is why Bernie will stay at 25%.
You can't keep blaiming those who are not the reason things are as they are.
And people really do support Hillary for her positions not because they know her name.
Again I doubt this will ever sink in.

Since she is so strong, you should WANT her to show that strength in comparison to the other candidates. Unless you are worried that she is only ahead because of 100% name recognition, you should WELCOME the chance for her to get the kind of media attention the Republicans are getting. Perhaps with the added exposure she will surge even further ahead. What's wrong with that. Why would you support the DNC's decision to deny your candidate that opportunity.

voters. At some point you have to accept reality. If Bernie were leading I would accept that more people want him for President. I certainly wouldn't make up excuses for Hillary not leading.
Face it. Bernie appeals to a limited number of Dems. The New Yorker article points that out. Bernie's main thing is economic justice and everything else he has to learn about during the campaign to attract more support. It just isn't going to happen for him and that is as it is. No one is being unfair.

Time will tell whether a voter, once they know about Bernie, chooses him.

But to limit debates so that he is less known, that is a chickenshit option, and one that is damaging to the Democratic Party and certainly democratic process.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz should get off her high horse (as if her leadership has brought anything good to the Democratic Party so far) and listen to those who are protesting, acknowledge them as a spirited potential part of the Democratic cause this year, and come to some accommodation that suits the protesting candidates. What could possibly be so hard or wrong about that?

No, it's because they wish to control the process - that is so f'ed up. And if someone can't see that, well, I think you really just aren't open to really considering what is right and good and fair. Possibly cause you're too pumped up for taking the prize, no matter what.

Taking the prize, no matter what, is not going to be good for Hillary, if that's the way she tries to do it. It will not be good for her support in the end.

There should be more debates. Hillary, if she is wise, should in fact call for more or at least call for some type of agreement/negotiating process that includes the other candidates and their followers and their feelings in the process.

Check out Debbie Wasserman Schultz's many answers to loyal Democrats wanting more debates.

What's the logic in not giving them to them?

What's the logic in ceding the publicity time to Republicans?

What's the logic in scheduling the debates on the weekends, during awkward holiday seasons, after primaries have already been held?

The only reasonable explanation is that the DNC wishes to honor Hillary's stated request for fewer debates and to keep the lesser known candidates lesser known for the most extended period of time they can manage.

You think he's a one trick pony, that's your opinion. He's not afraid to debate, and in fact wants to. Hillary says she is willing to debate, but she hasn't released her posse aka DWS to actually schedule more.

It's not just Sanders or O'Malley supporters that see the illogical discrepancy here. Many do, including the not so free press.

We're not afraid of his answers on foreign policy or minority issues.

So let the games begin. I assure you, if the game continues to look as rigged as it does right now you will have fewer supporters when they air clears. It's just human nature.

comparing polls this is over all good news. That the lies can be beaten back, albeit with a strong GOP confessional assist, and that positive national exposure helps, especially in addressing a less wonkish audience. That is simply good news for Democrats leery of the truth or dismissive of the garbage spew of constant GOP hogging of the airways. All candidates have a great chance to improve when an actual national presentation gets more active.

Biden is not a candidate. His inclusion fucks up the numbers.
Until he jumps in the M$Ms insistence on including him masks Clinton and Sander's actual numbers.
It's pathetic.

It's only Reuters, one of the most accomplished news agencies in the world.



Nothing to see, just go back to sleep.

The Ipsos/Reuters poll is horrible, as it is not even a real poll. It is an always open, open response, self-selected sample monstrosity that is gussied up to be the equivalent of a traditional poll.

Since it is always open, Clinton just had a horrible "polling" day yesterday for Reuters, for some reason. It will weigh on the next 5 days of results before suddenly vanishing, at which point there will be a sudden spike as the shit poll rolls off. Any single day you look, it is almost completely arbitrary what results you will get; much less whether any kind of sustained trend can be identified.

terrible candidate, short in areas of experience needed by a president.

Nice try though.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251650529

Nice try though.

Flooding in South Carolina? Russia in Syria? Bombing in Kunduz? Nah, that's not news, let's talk about Clinton tending a bar on a skit show.

the press will report anything you like.

Perhaps Bernie can run in Venezuela.